Ukraine

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-61402829

 

"although Moscow would only use nuclear weapons if Mr Putin perceived an "existential threat" to Russia."

 

Of course, it might be lies and/or faulty intelligence, but hey.

[Blarmy]

6 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-61402829

 

"although Moscow would only use nuclear weapons if Mr Putin perceived an "existential threat" to Russia."

 

Of course, it might be lies and/or faulty intelligence, but hey.

That comment is probably based on opinion, albeit opinion supported by intelligence. Also, I read it as a positive, not a negative - however the big grey area is what Putin would perceive as an existential threat. 

[leicsmac]

2 hours ago, Blarmy said:

That comment is probably based on opinion, albeit opinion supported by intelligence. Also, I read it as a positive, not a negative - however the big grey area is what Putin would perceive as an existential threat. 

I'd certainly agree that it's a positive too, the caveat included here about what Putin would consider an existential threat aside.

 

I just wanted to try to establish the plethora of opinions earlier on this thread that a.) Want to provide that direct existential threat to Russia in the name of "being strong" and "sticking it to him" because, you know,  "he's bluffing" or b.) Think that he's about to drop a nuclear weapon on Ukraine just because he might be a little rattled as the malinformed takes they are.

[ClaphamFox]

I wonder what Putin will make of this:

 

Finald to apply to join NATO 'without delay'

[fox_favourite]

1 hour ago, ClaphamFox said:

I wonder what Putin will make of this:

 

Finald to apply to join NATO 'without delay'

Is this a miscalculation?
 

Would it have been better to stay neutral, but have a treaty that says if any Russian aggression occurs or building against Finland and Sweden, they will be treated as a NATO member. So then the ball is in Russia’s court and they are still technically neutral?

 

Only country that actually keeps mentioning a nuclear war is Russia, no wants that at all. 

[WigstonWanderer]

Just watched Threads 

[leicsmac]

9 minutes ago, WigstonWanderer said:

Just watched Threads 

Should be compulsory viewing for anyone who has or is going to have nuclear release authority, tbh.

[WigstonWanderer]

14 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Should be compulsory viewing for anyone who has or is going to have nuclear release authority, tbh.

Things can spin out of control very fast. Once one side believes the other will attack, they are likely to try to get in first and go all out. Now going to watch Dr Strangelove again.

[bovril]

Just now, WigstonWanderer said:

Things can spin out of control very fast. Once one side believes the other will attack, they are likely to try to get in first and go all out. Now going to watch Dr Strangelove again.

And if the Russian sabre-rattling works, it shows how potent a nuclear deterrent can be, and other countries will develop it. Wouldn't surprise me to see Poland try to develop them in the future. 

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, bovril said:

And if the Russian sabre-rattling works, it shows how potent a nuclear deterrent can be, and other countries will develop it. Wouldn't surprise me to see Poland try to develop them in the future. 

*Cue Metal Gear Solid theme*

[Spiritwalker]

8 hours ago, fox_favourite said:

Is this a miscalculation?
 

Would it have been better to stay neutral, but have a treaty that says if any Russian aggression occurs or building against Finland and Sweden, they will be treated as a NATO member. So then the ball is in Russia’s court and they are still technically neutral?

 

Only country that actually keeps mentioning a nuclear war is Russia, no wants that at all. 

Why would NATO give them the benefit of being a member without the cost and commitment of actually being a member?

[Sol thewall Bamba]

On 11/05/2022 at 08:49, SMX11 said:

While welcome it is more of a PR victory as that area is really at the fringes of the main front in Dombas. 

Pushed their artillery out of range of Khakiv though, which is significant.

[Sol thewall Bamba]

Massive Russian loses being reported after a disastrous river crossing, great stuff. 

[Detroit Blues]

On 11/05/2022 at 03:49, SMX11 said:

While welcome it is more of a PR victory as that area is really at the fringes of the main front in Dombas. 

It's actually a pretty big deal. Once Ukraine moves their artillery up to Kharkiv, they'll be able to effect the Russian supply lines going from Belograd to the Donbas. 

[turlo]

2 hours ago, Sol thewall Bamba said:

Massive Russian loses being reported after a disastrous river crossing, great stuff. 

Now that's what you call a tank/ armoured vehicle graveyard.  apparently they've attempted the crossing several time over the past week with the same outcome each time . It's right at the tip of the Ukrainian Army positions in Donbass where the Russians are trying to encircle them and need to get across that River. 

 

 

[String fellow]

16 hours ago, Spiritwalker said:

Why would NATO give them the benefit of being a member without the cost and commitment of actually being a member?

On RT News today, the bizarre narrative was that Finland wants to join NATO so that it can annihilate Russia!

[Sol thewall Bamba]

19 minutes ago, turlo said:

Now that's what you call a tank/ armoured vehicle graveyard.  apparently they've attempted the crossing several time over the past week with the same outcome each time . It's right at the tip of the Ukrainian Army positions in Donbass where the Russians are trying to encircle them and need to get across that River. 

 

 

The level of incompetence is crazy. That's litteraly a scene from WW2.

[WigstonWanderer]

33 minutes ago, Sol thewall Bamba said:

The level of incompetence is crazy. That's litteraly a scene from WW2.

More like Dad’s Army

[fox_favourite]

54 minutes ago, String fellow said:

On RT News today, the bizarre narrative was that Finland wants to join NATO so that it can annihilate Russia!

Wow! I can sort of see why Russia can think it’s a threat, but they won’t be attacking, no one does or wants a war. They joined because they were worried Russia would invade them, as shown by Ukraine.

 

From what I’ve read, the Fin’s army is very well trained for defence

Edited 13 May 2022 by fox_favourite

[st albans fox]

Turkey (well erdogan) has said that they will oppose Finland and Sweden joining NATO 

 

opportunistic but then autocrats generally are, especially religious ones

 

in the meantime, why can’t other western nations enter into a legally binding agreement with Sweden and Finland whereby they accept the equivalent of nato article 5. Hence they don’t need to be part of NATO but they have the important guarantees that they would like. 

[ClaphamFox]

Lots of Russian oligarchs have died in very strange circumstances over the past few months...

 

A series of unfortunate events

Edited 13 May 2022 by ClaphamFox

[LCFCCHRIS]

22 hours ago, ClaphamFox said:

Lots of Russian oligarchs have died in very strange circumstances over the past few months...

 

A series of unfortunate events

Has to be Putin's work... I assume suicide by stabbing isn't very common either. Scary stuff.

[LCFCCHRIS]

22 hours ago, st albans fox said:

Turkey (well erdogan) has said that they will oppose Finland and Sweden joining NATO 

 

opportunistic but then autocrats generally are, especially religious ones

 

in the meantime, why can’t other western nations enter into a legally binding agreement with Sweden and Finland whereby they accept the equivalent of nato article 5. Hence they don’t need to be part of NATO but they have the important guarantees that they would like. 

Surely Britain's agreement with Finland is as good as article 5 NATO for them? I could be wrong but if Britain came to Finland's defense during an attack, meaning British servicemen and women would be potentially in the firing line, wouldn't that mean article 5 would be triggered for all of NATO?

Edited 14 May 2022 by LCFCCHRIS

[st albans fox]

1 minute ago, LCFCCHRIS said:

Surely Britain's agreement with Finland is as good as article 5 NATO for them? I could be wrong but if Britain fame to Finland's aid during an attack, meaning British servicemen and women would be potentially in the firing line, wouldn't that mean article 5 would be triggered for all of NATO?

Haven't seen the contents of the agreement - could just be a vague assistance pact …..

 

also, if a nato country is attacked whilst fighting in a different country then article 5 isn’t triggered.  I believe it has to be attack on your sovereign territory 

Edited 14 May 2022 by st albans fox

[Sol thewall Bamba]

 

The material loses for the Russians are totally unsustainable. As usual I'm not sure they could care less about loss of manpower but the West can provide so many more AT weapons than Russia has available. Russia won't make any more significant gains imo.

Edited 15 May 2022 by Sol thewall Bamba